What is Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy (REBT)?
 
Home PageWhat is Counselling?Telephone counsellingWhat is CENT counselling?Counselling in Hebden BridgeBlog: Happiness CounsellingCouples counsellingSix main servicesCounselling in HalifaxSearch this siteCounselling supervisionWhat is REBT counseling?Counselling in ManchesterContact UsCounselling videosWhat is TA counselling?Counsellor in Leeds7 counselling specialismsCounselling lecturesAttachment in CounsellingCounselling in WilmslowCounselling MembershipCounsellor in YorkNarrative Counselling & T'pyCounselling in LondonCounselling NewsletterCounselling in EdinburghDonate buttonWhy counselling?Benefits of counsellingZen and CENT CounsellingStoicism & CounsellingAcademic CoachingAbout Dr Jim ByrneAbout Albert EllisCounselling TrainingGeneral Counselling booksStudy GroupsEmail counsellingHow to meditateCENT PublicationsContact UsWriting therapyAnger managementCounselling e-bookThe CENT Stress bookGeneral CounsellingCounselling at a DistanceStress counsellingF2F Counselling Info PackCounselling specialismsAnger counsellingSite descriptionREBT counselling ResearchCounselling for AnxietyCounselling for depressionDietary researchLinks & ResourcesThe CENT InstituteConfidence coachingLocations, Map and DirectionsFrequently asked questionsSite MapAccreditation & Ethical CodesClient TestimonialsFees SchedulesContact UsDietary counselCounselling for pain

WHAT IS REBT?

Copyright © Jim Byrne, 1999, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010/11

New introduction to this page

1st December 2011

Copyright © Dr Jim Byrne, Doctor of Counselling

On 16thNovember, I presented a one-day workshop on Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy (REBT) to a group of doctoral students at the University of Manchester.  In preparation for that event, I made and posted the following video clip on YouTube. Entitled REBT Theory: Three Brief Lectures, it introduces the core concepts of REBT in three relatively easy stages:

Jim.for.rebt.jpg

 

Click the following link to view this video clip:

REBT Theory: Three Brief Lectures

 

On 17thNovember I decided to make and present a second video on REBT, this time exploring the conscious and non-conscious levels of mind.  Humans are creatures of habit, and most of our moment to moment actions are based on habits which are controlled from non-conscious levels of mind.  This means we need to understand not only how to change our conscious thoughts, but also how to impact our non-conscious, habitual cognitive-emotive ways of responding to events and situations.  This second video is entitled Part 2 - The Basic Theory of REBT: The Horse and The Rider (or Conscious and Non-conscious thoughts)

This video features Dr Tom Miller's popularization of Dr Albert Ellis's REBT system:

Viewer Comment

"Thank you for these brilliant videos.  In slightly more than thirty minutes you are able to clearly explain a theory and technique that my professor has tried to define for several weeks".

Cy Anderson, via YouTube dot com 

~~~

In my University of Manchester seminar/workshop, I presented two PowerPoint inputs, the first of which was entitled: 'What is REBT?'.  I have now uploaded that presentation, with a new soundtrack, to Author-Stream, and you can find it by clicking the link that follows.  But you will also need to download a PDF document entitled 'REBT Workbook and Handouts', by clicking the link below the screen that follows:

Here is the link to the downloadable REBT Workbook and Handouts PDF document. 

~~~

Once you have downloaded the REBT Workbook and Handouts document, you are in a position to watch the PowerPoint above, entitled 'What is REBT?'.  As you progress through that PowerPoint presentation, you will be prompted to look at specific pages in the REBT Workbook.

~~~ 

An aside on morality and REBT 

I made a significant error on slide 16 of the PowerPoint presentation on REBT, shown above.  I could have gone back and edited that error out.  However, the reason I made the error is that none of us has had enough practice yet in talking about the way morality fits into the REBT theory.

On slide 16, ‘ethics' - (and, by implication, ‘morality') - is shown to be part of the distinction labelled ‘preferential thinking', as opposed to belonging to the category of ‘demandingness'.  This is how it was classified by Dr Tom Miller, who elaborated some of the implicit elements of Dr Ellis's system.  But in my presentation, I disagreed with this classification, and tried to clarify that, in my view, morality is not a ‘mere preference'; it's not about ‘individual preferences'.

How I expressed that disagreement, on the soundtrack of the PowerPoint presentation shown above, was by saying that "I absolutely must not harm you, and you absolutely must not harm me".  However, that would put morality in the category of ‘demandingness', which would be an error.

Actually the correct distinction is a three-way split:

1. Preferential thinking: Examples: "I wish... I want... I would like..." etc;

2. Unreasonable or unrealistic demands: Examples: "You absolutely must be competent; I absolutely must not disappoint you; and the world absolutely must give me all the cream cakes I want"; and:

3. Moral injunctions - or categorical (moral) requirements: Examples: "I (morally) must not harm you and your legitimate interests; and you (morally) must not harm me and my legitimate interests".

Categorical moral requirements are more than preferences - they are required of us, logically and realistically, using the tests devised by Immanuel Kant.  However, they are not "absolute requirements" in the sense that "absolute" is used in relation to "laws of the universe".  Water "absolutely" must turn into steam when it reaches a certain temperature.  However, with morality, even though nobody has the right to harm me, and all humans are required by moral law not to harm me, that will not necessarily stop somebody from acting immorally towards me.  But it is by no means the case that they are merely breaching my preference.  They are breaching the Golden Rule, and acting in a way that cannot be promulgated as a universal rule, because to advocate a universal rule that anybody may harm anybody they wish, when they wish it, would herald the rapid demise of social cohesion and the end of society.

Because Albert Ellis failed to make this distinction, REBT has often been seen to promote amorality, and sometimes immorality, largely by default.  Dr Ellis himself has said that nobody should ever be blamed for anything, which does not make sense in terms of maintaining a moral and legal system which is essential for the cohesion of any kind of culture.  And Dr Ellis failed to see that there are forms of appropriate and inappropriate guilt.  He saw all guilt as being neurotic or irrational; while I see guilt as one of the main moral emotions which helps to keep our ‘good wolf' on track in terms of its social behaviours.

I will discuss this point further later on.  In the meantime, you might want to take a look at:

Byrne, J. (2009) Beyond REBT: The case for moving on.  CENT Paper No.1(b).  Hebden Bridge: The Institute for CENT.  Available online: http://www.abc-counselling.com/id165.html

Byrne, J. (2011) Additional limitations of the ABCs of REBT.  CENT Paper No.1(c).  Hebden Bridge: The Institute for CENT. Available online: http://www.abc-counselling.com/id301.html.

~~~

The structure of REBT sessions 

Almost halfway down this page, I have posted the second PowerPoint which I presented on 16th November, at the University of Manchester, on The Standard Structure for an REBT Session.  I have placed it further down this page, because it would be to your advantage to review some more basic elaborations of the core elements of the system of REBT before moving on to look at session structures.

~~~

Previous introduction to this page:

Here is a quick video introduction to this page.  This clip was made in 2009, when we were preparing for the third anniversary of the death of Dr Albert Ellis***,the creator of REBT.  The fourth anniversary has now come and gone

Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy (REBT) was the original form of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT). It was created in the 1950s by Dr Albert Ellis, a world-famous psychologist based in New York City.

Al-Ellis-REBT-therapist.jpgREBT arguably owes more to Stoic and Buddhist philosophy than it does to modern psychology, though it took full account of the insights of cognitive psychology at its foundation (Ellis, 1962). Ellis studied philosophy from the age of sixteen years, and combined his studies with the use of behaviour modification techniques to cope with his own problems of social anxiety. He then used his emerging philosophy of life to help his friends with their relationship and sex/love problems.

The core of Ellis's therapy was reasoning, and self persuasion. In particular, looking for the ways in which we are exaggerating how bad our lot is, and reducing our upset by ‘disputing' our exaggerations. He himself said the core of his orientation in the world was: reason, humour and scepticism.

In his first paper on Rational Therapy (Ellis, 1958) he lists twelve "irrational beliefs" that humans use to disturb themselves. Here are the first two:

# I must be loved and approved by all significant others, all of the time, and if I'm not, it's awful.  And:

# I must be adequate, competent and achieving in all significant respects, and if I am not, then I am worthless.  Etc.

His conviction at this time (1958 - 1962) was that people disturbed themselves by the way they talked to themselves, in simple declarative sentences.  However, over time, this changed, and now it must be said that REBT does not focus exclusively on the client's self-talk, but on the interplay of feeling, behaviour and thinking.  So a client is assumed to be able to control their presenting problem by changing their thinking, feeling or behaviour.  By changing one, it is assumed the other two will follow suit.

Figure-8-Y-lifter.gifDespite this complexity of REBT, in practice it is often simplified back to the question: "What are you telling yourself to make yourself unhappy/angry/anxious?" This simplistic approach to human disturbance is critiqued further down this page.

Sometime later, perhaps in the late 1960s or early 70s, Dr Ellis created the ABC model of human disturbance.  This was inspired by the neo-Behaviourist S-O-R model (Stimulus>Organism>Response).  The S-O-R model said that an incoming stimulus at the boundary of an organism (animal/human) is processed to produce an appropriate response (R). 

Initially, the A>B>C model said something similar:

An ‘Activating Event' (A) -

- Is perceived by a person's ‘Belief System' (B) -

- Which then determines their ‘Consequent' (C) Emotional and Behavioural response.

~~~

Let us clarify this a little further

A = Activating Event = Something (bad) happens (to somebody).

B = Belief System = The person to whom this (bad) thing happens appraises and evaluates this development.

C = Consequence = The 'A' (Activating event), multiplied by the 'B' (or Belief about it), produces an emotional and behavioural consequence.

This can be shown diagramatically, as follows, using the example of a threat or danger triggering concern and/or anxiety:

ABC-model.jpg

# Here is an illustration of how to ask a client for an ABC problemin REBT...***

# And here's a description of how to analyze the ABCs of Anxiety...***

The idea here is that if the person held an ‘Irrational belief', then their (C) Consequent emotional and behavioural response would be an ‘over-upset', or ‘disturbance' - such as feeling and acting in an angry, anxious or depressed way.

On the other hand, if the person held a ‘Rational belief', then their (C) Consequent emotional and behavioural response would be a ‘reasonable upset' - such as feeling and acting in an irritated or concerned way.

# Here is an illustration of how the ABCs of REBT apply to understanding anger causation and removal...***

Dr Ellis also emphasized giving up four kinds of irrationality:

# Demandingness (or the use of absolute shoulds, musts, ought-to's, etc);

# Awfulizing (or exaggerating the degree of badness of a somewhat bad stimulus);

# Low Frustration Tolerance (LFT) - (which means believing that ‘I cannot stand' perfectly bearable burdens; and acting lazily or weakly in the face of challenges); And:

# Condemning and damning yourself, other people and/or the world. (This involves giving a global negative rating in response to a bad trait, feature, behaviour, etc).

He particularly emphasized the need to get rids of ‘shoulds' about things that are unchangeable (at this point in time). And refusing to condemn and damn ourselves, others and the world when they show up as bad for us. 

# Here's a description of how to debate and dispute the IBs that cause depression, including a video clip...

Ellis continually refined and updated his models, and, sometime in the 1980s, the ABC model was expanded to the G-A-B-C-D-E model as follows:

Figure-5-t-ABC.gifG = Goals: Humans have goals, to survive, be free from pain, and to be happy.

A = Activating Event: Something happens to thwart a person's goals.

B = Belief system: The frustrated individual responds with either a rational belief (RB) or an irrational belief (IB) to the noxious activating event (at ‘A').

C = Consequence: As a consequence of the interaction of the ‘A' and the ‘B', the individual experiences a particular level and kind of emotional arousal (at point ‘C' in the model).

D = Debating and disputingirrational beliefs: If the individual is overly-upset about this particular ‘A', they can debate and dispute their irrational beliefs (IBs) with an REBT therapist - or teach themselves to debate and dispute their IBs.

# Here's a detailed description of how to debate and dispute irrational beliefsin REBT...***

# And here's a more detailed presentation of the logical, empirical and pragmatic questions used to dispute anxiety-inducing irrational beliefs, from a pamphlet by Dr Jim Byrne...

E = Effective new philosophy: As a result of debating and disputing their irrational beliefs (IBs) and replacing them with a set of rational beliefs (IBs) the client is then said to be in possession of an (E) or Effective new philosophy, which they must review and review and review, over and over and over again, to get it into their long-term memory, and to overwrite their original irrational beliefs (IBs).

# And here is a description of an effective new philosophy (E)...***

~~~

If you like this page, why not share it with your social networks? Click the button that follows:

Bookmark and Share 

 Thank you! :-)

~~~ 

To support this public education website, please donate:

DonateButton2.gif

~~~

A video overview 

Will Ross has produced an excellent video overview of the theory of REBT, which follows (copyright Will Ross):

Will's video is one of the best, most comprehensive video overviews of the ABCs of REBT. 

And now I will present an academic assignment of my own on REBT, which shows some further elaboration of the ABCs of rationality and irrationality, including further illustrative models; plus a couple of case examples of disturbances and how to correct them (using myself as the model); plus a description of the therapist-client relationship in REBT:

# Extract from Assignment 6 of my Rusland Diploma coursework, on REBT...

Most of the disputing questions presented above are particularly helpful in disputing 'demandingness' - as when the client holds absolute shoulds, absolute musts, etc. 

The emphasis on irrational beliefs in REBT shifted in the mid 1970s, from the idea that people mainly disturb themselves by 'awfulizing' - or exaggerating the degree of badness of the bad events in their lives - to demandingness (or 'musturbation' as Albert Ellis liked to call it!)

Somewhere in the early 1990s, Dr Tom Miller developed a method of measuring the degree of badness of noxious Activating Events (or 'A's).  I adapted that method for use with my own clients, and wrote about it in my booklet entitled 'Overcoming Fear and Anxiety'.  Here is a link to Appendix 'C' of that booklet:

# Using a numerical scale to assess the degree of badness of a noxious activating event: an extract on 'Disputing Awfulizing' in REBT...

If you want to go deeper into the philosophy of REBT, then why not read Albert Ellis's essay:

# The Essence of REBT, by Dr Albert Ellis***

If you want a detailed application of the GABCDE model, from beginning to end, applied to practical, everyday problems, then please take a look at:

# Who controls you? An article by Wayne Froggatt...***

And if you want a more detailed destription of how Dr Ellis and his acolytes did their assessment and teaching role in counselling contexts, then:

# Please take a look at this link to the relevant section of an REBT book, at Google Books...***

~~~

Second extract from my University of Manchester presentation

The structure of REBT sessions

Let me now present the PowerPoint presentation entitled Standard Structure for an REBT Therapy Session, which I presented on 16th November.  In this presentation, I use the example of a client from about five or six years ago, who had been expelled from a political party, and who was depressed about her loss and failure.  You will need to have your REBT Workbook, from above, before you begin to watch this presentation.

~~~ 

Further elaborations of REBT theory, by Dr Jim Byrne 

I now want to provide a more in-depth presentation of the theory of REBT.  Since it is an extensive theory, which has subtly different ways of dealing with different distressing emotions, I will stick to the example of REBT applied to anger management.  What follows is an extract from my latest paper on CENT; specifically the REBT contribution to anger management: 

Extract from CENT Paper No.11: 'Understanding anger in yourself and other people: What the experts say':

Dr Albert Ellis's most comprehensive book on anger was co-authored with Chip Tafrate, in 1998[1].  REBT is a very good and effective approach to anger management, in my experience, working as a counsellor/psychotherapist, where I have used it extensively for more than twelve years. (See also Ellis's earlier book on anger management from 1986[2], which emphasizes using logic and reason to combat the emotion of anger).

Dr Ellis's approach begins with the ABC model, which has three parts:

The ‘A' = Activating Event, (something unpleasant happens: such as frustration while driving on a busy street, or somebody keeps you waiting for a meeting in a public place);

The ‘B' = Belief, (which means you can either respond with a ‘rational'[3] or ‘irrational'[4] belief about this frustration); and:

C = Consequent emotions, (which will be anger if you adopt an irrational belief about that frustration, as defined in the footnote below).

In REBT theory, the C (Consequences) of a noxious activating event (at point A in the model) can be either an "unhealthy negative emotion" (like anger) or a "healthy negative emotion" (like irritation or annoyance".  (Ellis and Tafrate, 1998)[5].  Healthy negative emotions (which involve irritation and annoyance) are said to be caused by "rational beliefs" (which include preferential thinking); while unhealthy negative emotions (like anger) are said to be caused by"irrational beliefs" (like making absolute demands on one's self, others and/or the world).

# If you are a counselling student, and you need help with your academic studies, take a look at Jim Byrne's Academic Support and Coaching Service.***

# Or if you are a REBT/CBT therapist, you might be interested in my Supervision Service for Counsellors...***

The biggest offenders in the field of irrational beliefs are: absolute must's, should's, have to's, ought to's, got to's, need to's; or telling ourselves it's ‘awful, terrible, horrible, catastrophic'; or concluding that ‘I can't stand it/ bear it/ tolerate it'; and you (the person frustrating me) are ‘a rotten individual, a bad person, a louse, a worm, a bitch, a bastard;and so on.  (See Ellis and Tafrate, 1998, pages 40-43).  It might be that it is the element of ‘damnation' of the other person that most reliably triggers the emotion of anger. (Ellis and Dryden, 1999; page 21)[6].

~~~ 

Here is Part 1 of my own three part series on Deepening our Understanding of the ABCs of REBT:

~~~

Indeed, although REBT therapists and theorists mainly reduce the irrational beliefs to four[7]- which are: demandingness; awfulizing; low frustration tolerance; and condemning and damning of self, others and the world - there were originally about a dozen irrational beliefs listed in Ellis (1958, 1962)[8].  In Ellis (1994) eleven irrational beliefs occur[9].  Upon reading those eleven irrational beliefs, it might seem that number three is the best candidate for inducing anger.  It reads: "People absolutely must act considerately and fairly and they are damnable villains if they do not.  They are their bad acts".  However, many of the others could equally induce anger in an individual; for example, irrational belief number one says: "It is a dire necessity for adult humans to be loved or approved by virtually every significant other person in their community".  If somebody fails to approve of you, you could damn them, and make yourself angry at them.  (See chapter 4 of Ellis, 1994).

The main types of inferences[10] which most often trigger irrational beliefs which then directly cause anger are as follows:

(1) Frustration; as when somebody frustrates your goals or intentions.  Or they could frustrate you by not accepting, admiring or liking you as much as you believe they should.

(2) Transgression (or breaking) of your personal rules (by yourself or others); as when somebody does something you think should never be done.  An example could be, parking in your parking space; or not returning something they borrowed from you.

(3) Threats to your self-esteem or your personal domain; as when somebody openly and effectively criticizes you in front of your boss, your colleagues or your friends; or tries to invade your personal space or to take something that belongs to you.

So if you feel frustrated by the behaviour (or lack of action) of a significant other person, such as a partner, boss, employee, friend, etc., (or even a stranger, such as another driver blocking your exit on the street), you are likely to trigger an irrational belief about that frustration, which in turn will directly cause you to feel anger.  (In other words, the anger is not directly caused by what happens to you, but by what you tell yourself about that event!  Or, more accurately, what you tell yourself about your inferences about that event!)  And the most common irrational belief in this situation is probably that "They absolutely should not be blocking my goals in this way, and they are bad individuals for doing this".  Result, anger!

~~~

If you like this page, why not share it with your social networks? Click the button that follows:

Bookmark and Share 

 Thank you! :-)

~~~ 

DonateButton2.gif

~~~

There are very few publicly available audio or video recordings of Albert Ellis demonstrating REBT, but here is an example in which he works with Jeffrey Guterman over the telephone in the 1980s:

~~~

Here is a more detailed breakdown of the REBT model of anger causation:


The A, or Activating Event

The B, or Belief System

The C, or Emotional Consequence

A = Activating event.

A1: Inferences (or conclusions):

You conclude that somebody is frustrating you; or breaking your personal rules; or causing you to lose face.

B = Beliefs about ‘A'

B1: Rational beliefs:

You ‘tell' yourself: "I wish they had not done that; it is reasonably bad that they did; but they are not bad, and I can stand (being frustrated; or seeing them break my rules; or feeling somewhat dented in my self esteem)".

C = Consequent emotion

You feel Irritation and annoyance (but not anger!)

As above:

A = Activating event.

A1: Inferences (or conclusions):

You conclude that somebody is frustrating you; or breaking your personal rules; or causing you to lose face.

B2: Irrational beliefs:

You ‘tell' yourself: "I insist (demand) that they should not have (frustrated me; or broken my personal rules; or caused me to lose face).  This is awful (or 100% bad!)  I cannot stand this situation; and they ought to be condemned and damned as rotten and worthless".

C = Consequent emotion:

You feel anger (or rage)

Table 1: The Inferences That Trigger Anger-Inducing IBs

The main types of inferences which most often trigger the type of irrational beliefs which then directly cause anger are listed in box 3.1, in Appendix ‘C', and are as follows:

(1) Frustration;

(2) Self or other transgresses personal rule;

(3) Threat to self-esteem.

So if you feel frustrated by the behaviour (or lack of action) of a significant other person, such as a partner, boss, employee, friend, etc., (or even a stranger, such as another driver blocking your exit on the street), you are likely to trigger an irrational belief about that frustration, which in turn will directly cause you to feel anger.  (In other words, the anger is not caused by what happens to you, but by what you tell yourself about that event!  And what you tell yourself about your inferences about that event!)

The same effect will ensue if you or someone else transgresses one of your personal rules, and you happen to have irrational beliefs about that personal rule.

And finally, if you experience any event as a threat to your self-esteem, then you are likely to trigger any irrational belief you have about such threats, which will in turn directly cause you to feel angry.

# If you are a counselling student, and you need help with your academic studies, take a look at Jim Byrne's Academic Support and Coaching Service.***

# Or if you are a REBT/CBT therapist, you might be interested in my Supervision Service for Counsellors...***

The Same Inferences Can Trigger Rational Beliefs (RBs) and Irrational Beliefs (IBs)

Now the interesting thing here is this:  The same inferences which trigger your irrational beliefs will actually trigger rational beliefs if you have worked hard enough to eliminate your irrational beliefs.  That is to say, for example, if you dispute[11] your irrational beliefs about being frustrated, for a sufficiently long period of time, you will find that when you become frustrated in the future you will only feel (helpfully) irritated and annoyed; not angry.

It is therefore obvious that different consequences flow from the same inferences, depending on what your beliefs are: rational or irrational. 

For further detail on the REBT approach to anger management, please see Appendices ‘C', ‘D1' and ‘D2' attached.

Appendix ‘C' is a basic introduction to the ABCs of REBT applied to anger.

Appendix ‘D1' is an elaboration of the ideas contained in Appendix ‘C'.

And Appendix ‘D2' is a list of questions for ‘disputing' irrational beliefs that trigger angry responses.

Here is a very brief introduction to the kinds of questions used in debating, disputing and trying to change irrational beliefs, applied specifically to the inferences that are implicated in the causation of angry responses.  Fuller explanations can be found in the appendices specified below.

Disputing Irrational Beliefs

Type of Irrational Belief

Some brief examples of typical disputing questions used in REBT to defuse anger

Demandingness (Including should, must and have-to, etc).

Typical irrational beliefs here include these: "I must not be frustrated (by other drivers, for example)".  "You should obey my personal rules..."  "That bar-steward absolutely should nothave insulted me!"  And so on.  Here are some disputing questions to use against your own demandingness:  Why must you be able to avoid all frustrations in life?  Why should you be exempt from occasional insults?  Why must everybody in the world conform to your personal rules? Etc. 

See Appendix D2 for a substantial range of logical, pragmatic and empirical questions for disputing demandingness.

Awfulizing (or claiming that this frustration is awful, terrible, horrible, etc.

Prove that this frustration is totally bad - as bad as could be.  Is it really 100% bad; as bad as losing all your limbs, and being in constant pain?  If it isn't as bad as it could be, how can you justify calling it ‘awful', or ‘terrible'?  Surely it's just some small percentage bad (like 10 or 20%)  See the Body Scale in Appendix ‘J' for a full description of how to dispute awfulizing.

...continued on next page...

Low frustration tolerance (or telling yourself you cannot cope with this frustration)

Low frustration tolerance claims that "I cannot stand this".  "I can't bear it".  "It's intolerable".  This is the easiest of the four types of irrational beliefs to debate, dispute, challenge and change.  Here are some questions: If you really could not stand it, wouldn't you be lying down on my office floor, instead of smiling at me from your comfy chair?  If your problems of frustration are so intolerable, how come you have been tolerating them for so many years?  Will it kill you if somebody frustrates you, insults you or threatens your sense of self worth?  It might not be ‘nice' to have to stand it, but you certainly can stand it, especially if you try.

Condemning and damning (of self, others or the world)

This type of irrational belief (IB) is about giving yourself, another person, or the world, a ‘global, negative rating'.  Typical examples of this type of IB could include: "You are a tish - a louse - for frustrating me".  "Other people are totally bad for breaking my personal rules".  "He should not have insulted me, and I feel like punching out his lights for that".  "I am a rotten louse for breaching my own personal rules".  "The world is a rotten place for not letting me get on and succeed!"  And so on.

If you are angry at yourself, or other people, then you are not relating to them and yourself as being "Okay", acceptable, with all your and their human imperfections. 

See Appendix ‘K' if you want to work on becoming better at thinking of yourself and other people as being okay: meaning acceptable to you, even when some of their behaviours are unacceptable to you.

Ellis and Tafrate (1998) argue that people who act angrily may often be acting in response to a previous feeling, such as feelings of shame: (Ellis and Tafrate, 1998, page 68).  If somebody puts us down, we may first feel ashamed, and then want to hurt them (those bar-stewards) for having hurt us (which they "should not" have done). For this reason they advocate shame-attacking exercises.

They also point out that people may anger themselves because they suffer from "deep-seated feelings of unassertiveness" (page 68).  In other words, because they do not feel able to assert themselves reasonably with somebody who frustrates them, they then escalate their emotions to the level of anger, which may come out in the form of indirect aggression.  For this reason, they advocate self-assertion training for angry people.

REBT does not restrict itself to thinking strategies for avoiding anger. It also advocates (1) learning how to relax; (2) feeling your way out of an angry situation; (3) acting your way out of anger (which comes down to ‘forcing yourself to act differently than you feel'); and (4) additional miscellaneous ways to reduce your anger.

Firstly, regarding feeling your way out of anger, REBT recommends the use of Rational Emotive Imagery (REI).  This is how it works:

1. Close your eyes and imagine the noxious activating event, or ‘A' (Somebody has frustrated you; or insulted you; or broken one of your important personal rules).

2. Check on the ‘C' (Emotional consequence): How do you feel in your chest and your guts?  Are your fists clenched?  Is your body tense?  Is your face flushed?  Get in touch with all those feelings and sensations. Feel it as intensely as you can.

3. Now, without changing anything about the activating event (‘A'), change your emotional response (‘C') by calming your body and mind.

4. Now ask yourself, ‘Which of my anger-inducing irrational beliefs did I change in order to calm down?  Was it my demands; or my awfulizing; or condemning and damning the other person?  Or giving up the idea that ‘I cannot stand this?'

Secondly, I want to summarize the additional ways that are recommended by Ellis and Tafrate (1998) for reducing your anger.  This is my rendition of that list, with some augmentation by me:

# Learn to accept that you are "senselessly enraged" rather than "sensibly annoyed", and stop damning and accusing others.

# Recognize that some of the effect of your anger comes from outside, but that you can either minimize or maximize that outside irritant.  Choose to minimize it.

# Learn to accept that you can definitely control your angry feelings, and set out to do so.

# Recognize that anger and rage do more harm than good to you and your closest relatives and associates.

# Keep trying and trying to reduce your anger and rage.

Then:

# Review the practical results of your anger.  What is it costing you?  What are the benefits?  Is it worth it to you?

# Learn to expect frustrations and insults, and determine to be resistant to them.  Strengthen your frustration tolerance and laugh off insults.

# Identify and challenge any tendency towards narcissism and grandiosity in yourself.  "Much anger stems from childish grandiosity".

# Challenge your anger-inducing interpretations.  Do you think the other person is deliberately trying to frustrate you?  You may be wrong.  Were they deliberately trying to insult you?  Probably not.  Did they intend to be unfair?  You cannot know unless you assertively challenge their words/actions.  Then you might find out your interpretation of their motives was wrong all along.

# Work at reducing your feelings of inferiority and inadequacy.  This means working on your sense of self esteem, self respect and self confidence.

# Avoid drugs and alcohol.  It is very hard to be calm and rational once you take intoxicating drugs.  (The TA view is that the first part of you to be knocked out by alcohol is your Parent ego state,which includes your conscience!  The next part to go is your Adult ego state, which helps you reason and make logical decisions!  You are then left with the mind of a child and the body of an adult.  Not a great recipe for avoiding anger and rage!)

# Recognize that other people are imperfect and error-prone.  Do not expect them to behave perfectly.

# Reduce your self-righteous indignation.  What makes you so sure you are better than them?  Do you have any real evidence?  (CENT would say that you both have a Good Wolf and a Bad Wolf side to your nature and character.  Will your getting angry with them bring out their Good Wolf, or will it not merely entrench their Bad Wolf?  And how can you be so sure you are not, now, acting from Bad Wolf in your righteous indignation?)

# Recognize the irony of hatred, which is that you damage your own body and mind by your state of anger, and the ‘target' of your anger feels none of that.  Or, as somebody once said: "Resentment is like taking poison and waiting for the other person to die!"  Or, as the Buddha is said to have observed: Anger is like a hot coal that burns the person who throws it!

#Adopt humanistic values.  This is how Ellis and Tafrate (1998) describe this step: "To acquire a more humanistic philosophy, remember that you abhor needless mistreatment; that most people feel the same way; that concern for others tends to bring about the kind of conditions that you would like; and that treating others well in spite of their unfairness has challenging, self-growth elements.  Without being a Florence Nightingale or St. Francis, you can find real satisfaction in trying to make the world a little better a place in which to live.  Complete self-interest can become monotonous and boring.  A vital, absorbing interest in something outside yourself, as REBT has shown since its inception, adds to long-range happiness.  Devotion to a community or social cause helps you - as well as the human race". (Pages 140-141).

# Imagine how pained your opponents are going to be by your anger.  Have some pity for their feelings.  As Lao Tzu used to say: ‘Dealing with people is like cooking very small fish!  If you are not careful, you will break them!' Or at least damage them.  Inhibit your rage by thinking of the pain you will cause.

# If you want to have good relationships with others, you have not only got to give up making them wrong; you have to give up enraging yourself at them, and hurting them.

~~~

# If you are a counselling student, and you need help with your academic studies, take a look at Jim Byrne's Academic Support and Coaching Service.***

# Or if you are a REBT/CBT therapist, you might be interested in my Supervision Service for Counsellors...***

~~~ 


[1] Ellis, A. and Tafrate, R. (1998) How to Control Your Anger before it Controls You.  New York: Carol Publishing. 

[2] Ellis, A. (1986) Anger: How to Live With and Without It. New York: Citadel Press.

[3]As defined in REBT, a ‘rational belief' is one that takes this form: "I would prefer it if this person did not (frustrate me, or break my personal rules, etc); it's reasonably bad (say 10% bad) that they do; I can stand a 10% bad situation; and it does not make them a ‘wholly bad person' that they have (frustrated me, or broken my personal rules).

[4] Again, in the language of REBT, an ‘irrational belief' is one that takes the following form: "This event (frustration, breaking of personal rules, etc) must not be happening; its awful (meaning totally bad) that it is; I cannot stand such an outrage; and the person who is (frustrating me, or breaking my personal rules) should be condemned and damned as rotten and worthless!".

[5]Ellis, A. and Tafrate, R. (1998) How to Control Your Anger before it Controls You.  New York: Carol Publishing.  Chapter 4.

[6] Ellis, A. and Dryden, W. (1999) The Practice of REBT.  Second edition.  London: Free Association Press.

[7] Ellis and Tafrate (1998), page 52.

[8] Ellis, A. (1958). Rational Psychotherapy, Journal of General Psychology, 59, 35-49.  And:

Ellis A. (1962). Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy, New York, Carol Publishing.

[9] Ellis A. (1994). Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy, Revised Edition. New York, Carol Publishing.

[10] An inference is a conclusion.  However in REBT it is defined as a "non-evaluative" conclusion.  Beliefs are said to be evaluative.  Some REBT theorists concern themselves with the inferences that trigger rational or irrational beliefs.  In terms of REBT theory of anger causation, Ellis and Tafrate (1998) do not discuss such inferences.  Ellis and Dryden (1999) discuss inferences, but not specifically in relation to anger induction.  The anger-inducing inferences discussed in this book are described in pages 12 and 13 (including Table 1) of Dryden, W. (1999) Rational Emotive Behavioural Counselling in Action.  Second edition.  London: Sage.

[11]"Disputing irrational beliefs", as described in Appendices ‘B' and ‘C' of this book, means challenging the validity of a particular belief on the basis of asking: Is this belief logical?  Is it proven?  Is it self-helping?

~~~

If you like this page, why not share it with your social networks? Click the button that follows:

Bookmark and Share 

 Thank you! :-)

~~~ 

DonateButton2.gif

~~~

Here is Part 2 of my three part series on the ABCs of REBT:

Ellis also created: 

- The distinction between ego disturbances and discomfort disturbances, which can be helpful.

- The distinction that he made between ‘reasonably upset emotions’, like concern, sadness, irritation; and ‘overly upset emotions’, like anxiety, depression, anger, etc.

- His argument against self-esteem and in favour of self-acceptance.

- Like Werner Erhard, a generation after him, Ellis considered that ‘insight’ (so loved by Freud and his psychoanalytic followers) was the booby prize, and did not change anything much for the client/patient. (The CENT view says that insight without action is worthless; but action without insight is blind!)

- Instead, Ellis advocated the use of cognitive, emotive and behavioural techniques to help the client to talk themselves out of their problematic emotional and behavioural situations. The cognitive techniques involve asking questions about the logic, reasonableness and usefulness of particular beliefs/attitudes. The behavioural approaches involve desensitization by forcing yourself to behave differently than you feel. And the emotive approaches include ‘shame attacking exercises’ and ‘rational humorous songs’.

~~~

Here is an illustration of his Rational Humorous Songs, as I sing three of my favourites! :-)

We have now reviewed the simple ABC model of REBT.  However, the reality is more complex than is indicated by the simple model.  This was brought out in 1996, when Windy Dryden and Frank Bond challenged some core concepts of REBT.  In 2003, Dr Jim Byrne took on that challenge and produced a new review of the complex ABCs of REBT.***

See also my page on Common Misunderstandings of the ABCs of REBT - 'Blaming the Victim'... 

Ultimately, even though REBT is a very powerful therapeutic philosophy, like all human philosophies it has its weaknesses. These are explored in a paper entitled: Beyond REBT - The birth of CENT.***

I have also written a subsequent paper on 'Additional limitations of the ABCs of REBT'.***

And here is a link to a video clip in which I explore the distinction between 'moral shoulds' and other kinds of shoulds.  One of the biggest weaknesses of REBT is that it argued against all uses of 'demands'.  But moral demands (or prescriptions and proscriptions) are not only reasonable and justified - "You (morally) must not kill me, or harm me in any way!" - they are absolutely essential for the continuance of a civilized society. Take a look and see what you think:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDt8sXV5F4g

# For information about the nature of CENT counselling, please take a look at 'What is CENT?' 

# Or take a look at the CENT Publications outlet.

# 'CENT Paper No.11 - Understanding anger in yourself and other people: What the experts say'.  Now available here. 

~~~

If you have reviewed all the material on this page, and the attachments, and you still have some outstanding questions on the nature and/or application of REBT, then you can ask Dr Jim Byrne to produce a written answer to your questions.  This is a bespoke service, offered at cost price in terms of the number of hours needed to do the work.  To get a quotation for this work, please send an email to Jim, describing the question(s) you want answered, and the kind of content you require - length, depth, detail, etc.  Send your email request to Dr Jim Byrne at: jim.byrne@abc-counselling.com.

~~~

And finally, Part 3 of my three part series on the ABCs of REBT:

Please take a look at the Institute for Cognitive Emotive Narrative Therapy (CENT).

 DonateButton2.gif

Or take a look at:

What is CENT?

About Dr Jim Byrne

Site description

The homepage;

The site map;

The happiness blog.

~~~

To recommend this website to friends and colleagues, please use this button: